An update on the Bush administration’s war on science: More than half of Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to a recent survey said they experienced political interference in their work, reports the Los Angeles Times.
EPA scientists have complained bitterly about Bush administration flacks who repeatedly water down language on climate change or ignore toxic chemical findings that impose costs on industry.
The survey shows that the agency is “under siege from political pressures,†according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
83 Comments
Pathetic.
Of course, what else would you expect from the Bush administration?
History will mark 2001-2009 as the “years of national disgrace” throughout history.
WORST
PRESIDENT
EVER
But don’t you understand?
Science opposes juh-HEEEEEEEEEEZ-us!
The universe is 6,000 years old.
God created the platypus on purpose (y’know…”intelligent” design).
Pat Robertson can pray away hurricanes.
juh-HEEEEEEEEEEZ--us helps people win Grammys, NBA championships, and tanker contracts.
War on science? That is a misleading statement. What you have is a bunch of government funded people upset that the government is in control of their work.
For those of you always in favor of more government here is a case where you got your wish. You got it and everything that goes with it. Should you really be surprised that a government run by your political opponents does things differently?
Besides, the study cited was conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists. What is their political leanings? Where do their donations go to? Hmmm. . .where would a union donate money in political campaigns? Hardly an impartial group.
Proudman, that is pure hogwash, plain and simple. What you have is a system denigrating science as a administration policy. The following is just one years (2005) worth of the administration ignoring real scientists, and siding with industry, who owns this administration, lock, stock and barrel:
September
EPA to make toxics reporting standards more lenient for industry (09/16/05)
August
BLM director encouraged ranchers’ lawsuits against her own agency (08/29/05)
White House proposes weak fuel economy standards for gas guzzlers (08/23/05)
Federal judge rebukes Bush administration for downgrading salamander protections (08/19/05)
Bush administration devalues estimated contribution of forest recreation to economy (08/15/05)
Bush administration slashes habitat protections for salmon (08/12/05)
Federal agency halves seasonal wetlands habitat (08/12/05)
Park Service spending millions more on Yellowstone snowmobiling study (08/10/05)
Alaskan sea otter gets Endangered Species Act protection (08/09/05)
July
Federal judge says San Joaquin River water contracts hurt endangered species (07/28/05)
EPA?s public relations campaign a waste of funds, says group (07/26/05)
EPA shelves bad-news report about auto fuel efficiency until after energy bill vote (07/26/05)
Interior Dept. drills away environmental protections (07/21/05)
BLM’s new grazing rules issued in disregard of gov’t scientists’ concerns (07/16/05)
FDA experts often culled from the ranks of industry (07/14/05)
Federal fisheries agency broke the law, investigation finds (07/13/05)
Bush administration expands popular energy conservation program (07/10/05)
June
BLM limits citizen input on drilling on public lands (06/30/05)
EPA to allow mine wastewater discharge into Alaskan bay (06/29/05)
FWS reinstates whistle-blower employee (06/29/05)
New fisheries rules could harm fish (06/22/05)
New fisheries rules could harm fish (06/22/05)
Pentagon ignored perchlorate pollution, GAO finds (06/21/05)
Former oil lobbyist employed by White House leaves to join ExxonMobil (06/15/05)
Bush administration disregards science on grazing damage (06/15/05)
May
Forest Service employee punished for reporting pesticide misuse (05/27/05)
Bush visit fails to boost morale at the EPA (05/26/05)
Judge rules Bush administration played down threat to endangered fish (05/26/05)
EPA gives money for beach monitoring programs (05/25/05)
Fish and Wildlife Service denies protection for pygmy rabbit (05/24/05)
EPA dumps its sewage dumping proposal (05/19/05)
Bush administration agrees to protect desert plants in Utah (05/17/05)
White House pushes nuclear power plants (05/17/05)
April
Energy development not hampered by lack of drilling permits (04/28/05)
BLM underestimates wildlife threats from drilling in Colorado (04/21/05)
EPA’s mercury pollution plan won’t meet reduction targets on time (04/21/05)
BLM shutting out public on Wyoming drilling plans (04/14/05)
EPA proposes weaker selenium standard (04/13/05)
Federal wildlife officials drastically trim endangered toad protections (04/13/05)
EPA decides against testing pesticides on children (04/08/05)
FWS cites national security as reason to reduce habitat protection in California (04/08/05)
March
EPA cracks down on coke plant pollution (03/31/05)
States sue EPA over new mercury rule (03/29/05)
White House weakens EPA cancer safeguards (03/29/05)
BLM plans to open up protected desert land to recreation and development (03/24/05)
Florida crocodiles to lose endangered status (03/24/05)
Bush administration appeals mountaintop mining defeat (03/18/05)
EPA inspector general to review hydraulic fracturing study (03/17/05)
EPA weakens mercury reduction requirements for power plants (03/15/05)
February
Federal court rules illegal EPA’s lax factory-farm pollution rule (02/28/05)
UN environmental summit agrees to voluntary approach to reduce mercury pollution (02/25/05)
EPA seeks controversial expansion of voluntary pollution-reduction programs (02/23/05)
Judge approves off-road vehicle restrictions in Florida’s Big Cypress Preserve (02/22/05)
Judge approves off-road vehicle restrictions in Florida’s Big Cypress Preserve (02/22/05)
Forest Service sued over its Sierra Nevada logging plan (02/20/05)
EPA making illegal, secret agreements with pesticide makers, NRDC charges (02/17/05)
Bush points to technology as key to climate change fix (02/17/05)
January
More pollution at national parks promised by Bush drilling juggernaut (01/28/05)
FWS removes federal protections for imperiled mouse (01/28/05)
BLM opens tortoise habitat to motorized recreation (01/27/05)
Fish and Wildlife Service discards scientific advances on endangered species (01/27/05)
Otero Mesa grassland opened to drilling (01/24/05)
EPA shirks the growing electronics-waste dilemma (01/21/05)
EPA grants amnesty to polluting factory farms (01/21/05)
Industry buys access to Bush inauguration (01/20/05)
“For those of you always in favor of more government here is a case where you got your wish”
This is not government it’s pure political capitalism —— it’s what we do best (chortle — chortle) (TIC)
I’m wondering how incredibly sorry you would have to be to end up as an ‘EPA Scientist’.
This is what you get with anti science folks in charge.
The only science is the bottom line for business.
Somebody put up the countdown again. I need a a reassuring reminder how close we are getting to being rid of this nightmare.
Only 8 more months and the reign of CON terror comes to an end.
George W. Bush is a name that will live in infamy.
Happy Sunday all.
This may be getting off on a tangent, but Monkeyhawk; allow me to assuage some of the ignorance of your Christian bashing.
When a Christian thanks the Big Guy for a victory etc…, he or she is not saying that God wanted them Cowboys to win. Rather they are thanking God for allowing them to perform to their capabilities.
.
And when fundamentalist Christians willfully misread the Bible and use that misreading to exploit and destroy the natural resources that God has given us?
What does that mean, outlander?
I agree Hank. Rather than get me angry at the EPA, it seem to me this LA Times (*liberal rag-in the tank) anonymous survey allows petulant children to make a political statement. It seem that the left thinks anyone with a science degree is untouchable and can’t be criticized.
They are the high priests of secularism.
“And when fundamentalist Christians willfully misread the Bible”–CapnA
According to who, you? HAHA HA HAHAHAHA HA HAHAAHA! Please stop it Capn. I can’t catch my breath…. OK
But no one should be anything but a good steward of the earth.
#
HLP
Posted April 27, 2008 at 9:53 am | Permalink
I’m wondering how incredibly sorry you would have to be to end up as an ‘EPA Scientist’.
==============================================
Kind of a low blow, ain’t it Hank? Couldn’t one use the same argument for, “I’m wondering how incredibly sorry you would have to be to end up as an ‘dog handler’?
I would think the environment in this country still needs work. Smog is still a problem; rivers are still polluted; there are still over 2000 super fund sites needing cleaning because the companies responsible failed to protect the environment, along with many other environmental needs.
So would you rather have lay people taking care of the environment, or scientific professionals? Or maybe you’d rather have business police itself, or maybe you’d rather have nobody do anything at all?
Remember the river that caught fire? Think EPA scientists sat on their ass doing nothing, or investigating the problem and correcting it. Tell you what: head out to the Arkansas river, fill up a gallon jug and drink it down as is. Continue with the same whenever you get thirsty, then will me your dog:-)
No, Hank, it takes dedicated people to try to do the right thing in the face of a President who could care less. Those same dedicated people are the ones keeping your drinking water drinkable, your food edible, and the air you breath clean; at least until this sorry President tries to undo all the good they’ve done.
“And when fundamentalist Christians willfully misread the Bible and use that misreading to exploit and destroy the natural resources that God has given us?” - CapnA
According to who, you? HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA, Stop it Capn, I can’t breath…..HA HA …. OK…
But we should all be good stewards of the world that God has given us.
Give me a break; same old crap. Attacking science with politics: you see these people doing it with evolution and global warming, so why not across the board? And this is anything but a new story, unfortunately. From 2004:
In February his White House received failing marks in a statement signed by 62 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and advisers to the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. It begins, “Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences…. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bush-league-lysenkoism
But keeps your heads in the sand, cons: political allegiance is so much more important than scientific integrity.
We are over regulated now. There is no global warming, every possible regulation resulting from what could happen would be overwhelming. So we have politics and the EPA.
And there is no gravity. The Earth sucks.
When I was in high school, I couldn’t see the Santa Monica mountains, and I went to school in Santa Monica: SMOG! The auto manufactures fought emissions controls tooth and nail. It didn’t matter to big business people were dying from smog. Hell, controlling it would cut into profits, and they couldn’t have that.
Thankfully, EPA scientists made the case and congress forced the auto makers to comply with emission controls. Yep, those same scientists now being told to keep their collective mouths shut if they can’t follow this administrations regressive policies. And on this thread, we have Republicans saying, “Yep, that’s a good thing.”
So, for the sake of placating the Republicans in this thread, I suggest we all go out and rip all those emission controls out, because they say they ain’t needed. Lets also go back to dumping industrial waste back into the river because those EPA scientists are nothing but cry babies. Hell, lets go find all the polluted soil from the super fund sites and put it back where we got it, because a little pollution never hurt anybody, right?
I mean, business needs no oversite when it comes to pollution as their track record is perfect on the subject, right? NOT!
Thankfully, again, we have the EPA to thank for the progress we’ve made on pollution and smog. Sadly, we have a pro-business, anti-environment president in power. Sucks to be a Republican on this one.
==============================================
General Electric Co., which is running a marketing campaign promoting itself as environmentally friendly, has pushed to weaken smog controls for railroad locomotives in rules about to be proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The rules, which could take effect between 2011 and 2017, are designed to cut smog and soot levels and would replace standards adopted in 1997. Since the rules would apply to new locomotives and could require changes on older ones, they would have a big effect on GE, which dominates the nearly $2 billion-a-year North American locomotive market. While the nation’s other locomotive maker and diesel-engine makers say they are prepared to meet the proposed new standard, GE argues it is “unlikely to be achieved” and has proposed a weaker one.
• What’s New: GE seeks to weaken antismog controls due from the EPA for train locomotives.
• The Background: The conglomerate’s action comes amid a major marketing campaign designed to portray it as an environmentally friendly company.
• What’s Next: The agency’s proposal, which may be released this month, would apply to new locomotives and could require changes on older ones.
The debate, conducted behind closed doors at the EPA for more than a year, focuses on a significant source of air pollution. The EPA estimates each locomotive produces as much pollution over its lifetime as 500 heavy-duty diesel trucks. In a notice to the industry, the EPA says current locomotives, including GE’s Evolution series, were designed to “meet relatively modest emission standards” of 1997.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117133508179906754-8grk303HlUPUVAZdRHZOX9uEn9s_20070315.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
My, My, guess who the Republicans can blame for the EPA? Why Nixon himself. So, I’m thinking the Republicans should be shooting themselves in the foot over this (assuming they have any feet left):
The Nixon Administration, although preoccupied with an unpopular war and a recession-ridden economy, took some stopgap action on the environmental front in 1969. In May, President Nixon had set up a Cabinet-level Environmental Quality Council as well as a Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality. His critics charged that these were largely ceremonial bodies, with almost no real power.
Stung by these charges, President Nixon appointed a White House committee in December 1969 to consider whether there should be a separate environmental agency. The President had already asked Litton founder, Roy L. Ash, to take a sweeping look at organizational problems throughout the government.
It was at just this time that Congress sent to the President a remarkable bill known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis)–looking back at the “Environmental Decade” in 1980–called NEPA “the most important piece of environmental legislation in our history.” It is easy to see why.
A tone of high-minded idealism pervades this statute. NEPA’s stated purposes were:
*
“To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.”
*
“To promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.”
*
“To enrich our understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation.”
To further these ends, NEPA called for the formation of a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to give the President expert advice on environmental matters. The CEQ was also charged with reviewing Environmental Impact Statements, which were now required of all federal agencies planning projects with major environmental ramifications.
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm
Good morning JM!
Some of the happiest, centered and balanced people I know are dog handlers, the good ones anyway. I wish I was one!!
The very best ones that I know, Bob Vest in Iowa, Kent Herbal in Oklahoma, Jerry Rowe in Osborne, Kansas are all quiet, soft spoken men. Good Christian family men.
One way or another they have found a way to make a living doing what they love.
You imply that I’m a dog handler? Nicest thing you’ve ever said about me! Thankyou!
Good morning, Hank,
. . . and I believe most of the EPA scientists are as good a people as dog handlers. And, yes, calling you a dog handler was a compliment:-) But I think calling someone an EPA scientist would have the same effect:-) Pint made:-0
pint=point (must be thirsty)
“You imply that I’m a dog handler? Nicest thing you’ve ever said about me! Thankyou!”
What, saying you make great burgers doesn’t count:-)
“Rather they are thanking God for allowing them to perform to their capabilities” — poster
like k-state?
That noted theologian “outlander” pontificates –
“When a Christian thanks the Big Guy for a victory etc…, he or she is not saying that God wanted them Cowboys to win. Rather they are thanking God for allowing them to perform to their capabilities.”
So “the Big Guy” sometimes doesn’t allow people to perform to their abilities?
Seems kinda a petty for, y’know, God to behave that way. You seem to worship a “god” who sits around Sunday mornings, looking over his bets, then plucking a hamstring or two just to allow the other team “to perform to their capabilities.”
“Yeah. We woulda won that game if Jesus hadn’t been against us.”
Is it possible to take this “Christian” argument to the open thread? ‘Cause it’s going to degenerate into another pillow fight.
Science?
Well how about this for very faulty logic:
“The United States has had environmental problems in the past, and those who opposed more regulations, at that time, were wrong — Therefore EVERYONE who opposes even MORE regulation, today, is ALSO wrong!”
Those of you who claim to represent science seem to support the above conclusion — and, of course, if you do think this way, you are not being at all scientific!
“The Union of Concerned Scientists” is a left wing group. You do not have to be a scientist to be involved with the group, and the only think that you have to be “concerned” about is attacking government or attacking capitalism.
When was the last time “The Union of Concerned Scientists” issued any warnings about pollution in a Communist country?
Any journalist or pollitician who quotes anything out of “The Union of Concerned Scientists” is either a leftist or naive.
“The Union of Concerned Scientists” is a left wing group.
Yep, just because Paulie says it’s so, it must be so!
Give me a break!
http://www.ucsusa.org/
#
Franklin
Posted April 27, 2008 at 11:09 am | Permalink
Science?
Well how about this for very faulty logic:
“The United States has had environmental problems in the past, and those who opposed more regulations, at that time, were wrong — Therefore EVERYONE who opposes even MORE regulation, today, is ALSO wrong!”
Those of you who claim to represent science seem to support the above conclusion — and, of course, if you do think this way, you are not being at all scientific!
“The Union of Concerned Scientists” is a left wing group. You do not have to be a scientist to be involved with the group, and the only think that you have to be “concerned” about is attacking government or attacking capitalism.
When was the last time “The Union of Concerned Scientists” issued any warnings about pollution in a Communist country?
Any journalist or pollitician who quotes anything out of “The Union of Concerned Scientists” is either a leftist or naive.
==================================================
Another wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Republicans label anyone not agreeing with their slash and burn views on the environment as “leftists.” Actually, “The Union of Concerned Scientists” want a world where gas masks are not needed, cars run with efficient mileage, as opposed to the ridiculous number today, and the ground where food is grown is not polluted.
Some of what they are striving for may be excessive, but that’s where negotiations come in, and where quality of life decisions can be made that benefit all people.
So, I guess I can say with authority anyone believing the Republican line is either stupid or naive:-)
““The Union of Concerned Scientists” is a left wing group.”
Of course they are. They are interested in scientific integrity as any responsible scientist would be. Anyone that wants honesty and integrity is going to be a leftist according to Paul.
The argument that pollution is the product of a GOP administration is poppycock pure and simple. Any scientist who would imply this is less than professional.
To look at the dems on pollution simply follow the Illinois river case and the poultry polution coming out of Arkansas. Being a former Okie I remember when Clinton was gov of Ark and his friends at Tyson foods were the biggest polluters. It went all the way to the fed SC before it was ruled in 1992 that the pollution was out of compliance. This started under a dem gov and continued under a dem prez.
Keep the arguments honest. When your bread and butter is government grants where does your allegiance lay?
The Union of Concerened Scientists is a far left political organization.
“Physicists Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford have criticized the UCS for opposing a US government-run nuclear waste reprocessing program. The UCS had claimed that the separation of weapons-usable plutonium from spent nuclear fuel could “make it easier for terrorists to acquire the material for making a nuclear bomb,” but Marsh and Stanford argued that “reactor fuel is going to be recycled, whether we like it or not.”[25].
Capitalism and free market-advocacy groups have also criticized the UCS for its stance on environmental and other regulatory issues. The UCS has been called an “unlabeled left-wing activist group”,[26] and criticized as having “policy positions that are predictably those of a far-left pressure group”.[27] Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, which catalogs what it asserts is liberal media bias in the United States press, has claimed that the UCS is “a left-wing activist organization…trying to position itself as being some kind of objective, centrist, moderate, apolitical entity when it is nothing of the sort.”[28]
S. Fred Singer, physicist, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia, NewsMax science advisor, and founder of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a group that disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke,[29] has said that the group has “zero credibility as a scientific organization.” Singer has been labeled a “climate contrarian” by the UCS.[30][31]
John Stossel, consumer reporter, author, and co-anchor for the ABC News show 20/20, believes that the organization is unduly alarmist about climate change, and commented, “The key word in ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’ isn’t ‘Scientists’ — you don’t need any particular degree or experience to join — but ‘Concerned,’ and the concerns in question are decidedly left wing.” Stossel also remarked that the organization’s “own website reveals that it developed out of a campaign to make students think that strengthening the American military was an illegitimate use of technology.” [32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists
“Franklin” gets up on his hind legs and brays –
“When was the last time “The Union of Concerned Scientists” issued any warnings about pollution in a Communist country?”
And just how many communist countries are there these days?
Cuba? Okay. But not much of a carbon footprint outside of those 1958 DeSotos.
North Korea? Again, not much of an industrialized nation. But George WMD Bush did encourage their nuclear power program.
China? Communist?! Not anymore. They’ve evolved into a run-of-the-mill totalitarian capitalist society (albeit, with a billion people).
It continues to astound me that the only people on the planet who still believe in the power (and threat) of communism are Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, and American conservatives.
Paul you would pave over your mother.
Look ksgrm (the hag of Kansas) uses the old excuse:
Bill Clinton!
Bill Clinton!
Bill Clinton!
Bill Clinton!
Bill Clinton!
Funny, you can’t really blame Bill Clinton for the bush years of NATIONAL DISGRACE.
I get it now, they are a leftist group because they are educated. That makes sense.
Nice to know that it’s only leftists who want clean water, lead free toys, airline repairs, fire codes, electrical standards, clean air, etc. I suppose that would make 99% of the people in America leftist.
The remaining 1% is Paul, who likes to drink from the same bucket he poops in.
S. Fred Singer, physicist, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia, NewsMax science advisor.
Boy, isn’t that would be considered “credible”: NewsMax science advisor?
…….afterall, NewsMax claims pat Boone as one of their pundits!
Capitalist countries do have a better record, on environmental matters, than Communist countries.
This is a fact.
Also, there are many small Communist countries.
The ability of a country to be a military threat to the United States might not be there, with all of the Communist countries of the world.
However, closed, Communist countries do tend to have terrible records where pollution is concerned.
A very large portion of the world’s population still lives under Communist rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party
Paul, Communist countries lack environmental regulations, that’s why they have crappier environments. You are opposed to environmental regulations, therefore you want America to be polluted like China.
Communist countries tend to be poorer and less technologically advanced hence the lower carbon footprint. If you compare America to similar technologically advanced countries like the socialist countries in Europe you’ll see the socialist countries have a much better record on the environment.
To supply a growing population with the multiplicity of needs necessary to sustain it fuel MUST be used, and byproducts of that use will result, some or most of which may be ‘harmful’ to the environment, or add to AGW if that even exists.
This being the situation, whether or not AGW is occurring at all is close to pointless and you fanatical armchair global warming (prophets ?) are simply urinating into a strong wind, which is hilarious to watch. Life will proceed on, burning fuel to survive and prosper, with you…or over the top of you. People, nations and governments will meet their more immediate needs and that includes using energy, and burning the fuel necessary to produce it. If you disagree with that, set an example and go live in a cave.
I don’t think anyone has mentioned Chris Mooney’s book, The Republican War on Science. This book documents in great detail the truth of the title. The only problem I have with the title is that it blames every Republican - elected or unelected - for wanting to denigrate science, which obviously isn’t true. But it is true that the Bush/Cheney Admin has succeeded in removing generally accepted scientific principles from being a guiding light when deciding questions of public policy, and they have been knowlingly aided and abetted by many elected members of Congress.
Paul sez:
“A very large portion of the world’s population still lives under Communist rule:”
Yet you have no problem electing politicians who invest billions in those countries and exploit them for cheap labor. So what’s your beef with Communist countries when you have no problem sending your money to them?
Popoff your grasp of the English language never ceases to amaze me. I pointed out that pollution isn’t a single party issue as you would like to believe and you respond with a well thought out answer that showed your amazing understanding of the scientific world.
Maggot did you miss the part about Tyson Foods an Ark company, friends of Bill and Hillary’s former board position polluted the Illinois river so badly that Oklahoma had to take the state of Ark to court to get it stopped. It went all the way to the supremes before they would clean it up. Ask the people who used Keystone lake in OK about drinking water that had been pooped in.
“Along with the neglect of science has come a broader neglect of expertise, competence, and even functional government. These are, perhaps, matters not so disparate. For science doesn’t merely provide a way of expanding knowledge of the world. It doesn’t just provide answers to pressing questions; it changes the conversation itself. Science—and the broader way of thinking that comes with it—trains its adherents and practitioners to relish the very act of questioning for its own sake, of figuring out what’s true and false, of determining what works and what fails. Science can detect dark matter and dark energy; it can also build you dependable levees.”
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/10/dr_president.php
Rather they are thanking God for allowing them to perform to their capabilities.
outlander,
Interesting explanation. Not bashing here, just wondering how God allows us to perform to our capabilities? And for those who are not Christian but are successful, did He allow that, too? And if so, why?
“Maggot did you miss the part about Tyson Foods an Ark company, friends of Bill and Hillary’s former board position polluted the Illinois river so badly that Oklahoma had to take the state of Ark to court to get it stopped. It went all the way to the supremes before they would clean it up. Ask the people who used Keystone lake in OK about drinking water that had been pooped in.”
What about it? How does that contradict anything I’ve said?
HLP: Did you show your hunting dogs west of Kingman near the Ninnescah River last Saturday/Sunday? The previous Thursday evening, I had dinner with about 20 old Pratt high school friends at Woody’s great bar and grill on Pratt’s south Main Street. Our special guests were Jim and Sally C. … Sally was a former Pratt classmate. They were in town to show their remarkably brilliant hunting dogs.
A couple days later, on Saturday PM, I watched their dogs compete at the site west of Kingman. Just occured to me you might have been among that crowd of dog enthusiasts. Looked like a fun group of competitors, both the people and their dogs.
Of course, you don’t see that written up in the main stream media!
Yes Maggot it does actually. I think Franklin was talking about over regulation in the science world and not about allowing pollution to go unchecked as you implied.
BTW Kelly mentioned the book by Chris Mooney as if it was a good source of info about repubs science standards. That of course was a joke I am sure. I looked at the credentials and additional writing of this Yale journalism graduate. Mother Jones, NYT, LATimes, Seed contributor. Plus radio shows on NPR and as a guest of Al Franken. Nothing about his scientific credentials.
Pardon me if I don’t take him as a serious critic.
Have you read the book, KFG? The author certainly is not a scientist, but that doesn’t mean his research is inaccurate.
Darn, I wanted to go to the flower store . . .
Go I am also out of here.
“Yes Maggot it does actually. I think Franklin was talking about over regulation in the science world and not about allowing pollution to go unchecked as you implied.”
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Kelly, please stop confusing me with grmie.
I said nothing about the book.
I didn’t even see the mistake until you pointed it out. Thought she was a little easy on me.
On another thread you made a remark about my crossing over and voting dem - I am still considering that but would not vote for Obama. He has a problem with taking a firm stand. You and yours weren’t the only people he has thrown under the bus. Look at his poor grandmother. The woman who raised him ‘acted like a typical white person’.
I really really don’t like McCain.
george
Posted April 27, 2008 at 10:26 am | Permalink
We are over regulated now. There is no global warming, every possible regulation resulting from what could happen would be overwhelming. So we have politics and the EPA.
life goes on without YOU.
The war on science isn’t attributable to a particular political party — it IS, however, one of the many failings of the current administration. Getting rid of the current bunch will move us into a new century. Unless we elect McSame. Even then we have a chance, depending on which McSame we get — he changes with the wind and what seems to be most politically expedient at any particular time.
Hey JWink,
I have herding dogs! I haven’t hunted in years. I could be talked into a pheasant hunt behind a good German Short Hair!
lindainks55
Posted April 27, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Permalink
Even then we have a chance, depending on which McSame we get — he changes with the wind and what seems to be most politically expedient at any particular time.
—
I find this disconcerting as well. Waffling on major positions may be a good way to win elections, but it’s a terrible recipe for leadership (seems to me).
One thing to his credit is this. I just finished watching “Paths to Glory” again on TCM (one of my favorite Stanley Kubrick films). At the end a TCM personage came on to say that this movie is also one of John McCain’s favorite films. (It’s a movie about authoritarianism, set in a military context provided by the French army of WWI…there’s only one female in the whole movie, who happens to be Kubrick’s widow and for other obvious reasons I don’t think a lot of women would like this movie…it’s also held up by some as an anti-war film, but that’s incorrect imo).
Anyway, can anybody imagine Augustus Stupidus even watching a film about the French army, much less declaring it a favorite of his BEFORE a prez election?!?
Not me. McCain gets points in my book for his statement.
“lindainks55″ posits –
“The war on science isn’t attributable to a particular political party…”
I dunno.
It’s been what? Thirty? Thirty-five years since Nixon’s Commission on Drug Abuse came back with recommendations to legalize marijuana?
From the first orbit of Sputnik, the presidency embraced science. From Eisenhower and Kennedy and LBJ… until Nixon (who took all the credit for the moon landing six months after taking office).
Since then, largely due to conservative backlash, science has been suppressed in America. Carter encouraged research into alternative energy. Reagan killed all the Carter initiatives. George HW Bush through George WMD Bush presided over continued denigration of scientific discoveries.
We know abstinence-based sex education, so what does Brownback suggest? Spend more money on abstinence-based sex education!
Even the Shrub Administration has painted itself into the corner were Dumbya admits there’s climate change. And faced with Mobil-Exxon, Conoco-Phillips, Shell, and assorted outfits (including the people who financed 9/11) making more profits than any other enterprise on the planet, the Republic Party advocates more taxpayer dollars to “subsidize” Big Oil’s profits.
CONservatives hate science because science deals with facts. Facts are the ultimate threat to conservatism. So science is under siege.
“HLP
Posted April 27, 2008 at 9:53 am | Permalink
I’m wondering how incredibly sorry you would have to be to end up as an ‘EPA Scientist’.”
Hank - for many scientists that was considered a sort of ‘higher calling’. Although one might make more money elsewhere one could still make a good living and also ‘make a difference’ working in EPA, Public Health, etc. Not everyone is motivated only by more money.
Hey for all of you AGW prophets and alarmicists out there, here is a real solution to carbon dioxide greenhouse gases and AGW:
Exhale less and quit increasing the CO2 and temperature of the earth (hot air).
“Monkeyhawk
Posted April 27, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
CONservatives hate science because science deals with facts. Facts are the ultimate threat to conservatism. So science is under siege.”
Science deals with facts?
As in AGW, Evolution, etc, etc?
Hypothesis
“Monkeyhawk
Posted April 27, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
CONservatives hate science because science deals with facts. Facts are the ultimate threat to conservatism. So science is under siege.”
Science deals with facts?
As in AGW, Evolution, etc, etc?
Hypothesis
“Monkeyhawk
Posted April 27, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
CONservatives hate science because science deals with facts. Facts are the ultimate threat to conservatism. So science is under siege.”
Science deals with facts?
As in AGW, Evolution, etc, etc?
Theory -
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Hypothesis
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.
NOTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE PROVEN FACT!
Sorry about the duplicate posts
We shouldn’t be surprised.
Angry and outraged, but not surprised by this information.
Remember Christy Todd Whitman? She was a little bush toady. LOVED the guy.
But she quit as head of the EPA years ago saying that bush made it impossible for her OR the agency to do its job.
Its all been a part of (cue big voice)
THE WORST ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY!
If a Democratic President gets elected and all these new legislation concerning Global Warming gets passed, I will be sitting back and laughing when people go into sticker shock at the ever increases prices.
There won’t be a thing left untouched by the tentacles of GW alarmists. Get used to empty pockets, it will come.
“Sorry about the duplicate posts”
That’s okay American, we can scroll over the duplicates just like we do the originals.
“Regular
Posted April 27, 2008 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
If a Democratic President gets elected and all these new legislation concerning Global Warming gets passed, I will be sitting back and laughing when people go into sticker shock at the ever increases prices.
There won’t be a thing left untouched by the tentacles of GW alarmists. Get used to empty pockets, it will come.”
You fail to see the investment opportunities in a different direction in an energy policy…. very simply you take your money out of oil and invest in a growth industry —- making turbines, green home building, ……. more than likely it will be subsidized by the feds and states to attract new business … it creates a win win — the economy grows in the transition and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil — maybe a few less wars …..
…… hah and you call your$elf a Republican I thought you were a smarter capitalist than that —
#
LR2
Posted April 27, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Permalink
…… hah and you call your$elf a Republican I thought you were a smarter capitalist than that —
————————–
Just an observationist.
When I see a 2000 square home that costs 750K just to green and energy efficient, I tend to cringe.
Or solar technologies that have been stagnant and money loss propositions.
I wasn’t talking about investing, I was referring all of the new hidden taxes and fees that will be added on by everyone from top to bottom for marketable products and services.
Need a new roof? Pay the premium for disposing of your old roof material and the recycling fee. Pay the contractor an environmental variable because Pay adjustment fees for falling above or below energy standards. Pay higher insurance rates because evaluation of maintenance of said roofs will have to be in adherence to new standards.
Pay the environmental fee for the supplier of the material that will certainly pass that cost on. Pay the environmental fee and taxes when aerial surveys reveal that your roof falls into a borderline neighborhood albedo effect even though your roof may be superior, your neighbors inferior roofs negate any positive environmental gains.
And that’s just one item. It will creep into food production and sales, trash, recyclables, transportation( in many ways), and so many things not even thought about.
I can hear the new school bond issue 10 years from now. “We will need 600,000,000 for construction of which 200,000,000 will be necessary to comply with new energy standards, plus a variable adjusted annual fee of 2 percent for environmental compliance maintenance.
Yuck.
The sound of the world being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?
Pissing and moaning from luddites.
Regular, I have more faith in most people’s common sense than to think they would allow economy destroying taxes and surcharges to be imposed, at least for very long.
We will all soon realize that global warming is way down on the list of things humanity has to worry about.
“WSClark
Posted April 27, 2008 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
“Sorry about the duplicate posts”
That’s okay American, we can scroll over the duplicates just like we do the originals.”
Exhale less and quit increasing the CO2 and temperature of the earth (hot air)!
“Exhale less and quit increasing the CO2 and temperature of the earth (hot air)!”
Typical Republican - when faced with a serious issue, make stupid jokes in a lame attempt to divert attention from the problem.
Same shit, different dumbass.
“WSClark
Posted April 27, 2008 at 8:04 pm | Permalink
“Exhale less and quit increasing the CO2 and temperature of the earth (hot air)!”
Typical Republican - when faced with a serious issue, make stupid jokes in a lame attempt to divert attention from the problem.
Same shit, different dumbass.”
Hey WS,
Do your part if you really believe in AGW.
Exhale less and quit increasing the CO2 and temperature of the earth (hot air)!
“We will all soon realize that global warming is way down on the list of things humanity has to worry about.”
Some special knowledge to which you are privy?
Other more important issues?
Care to share?
Get really scared — global climate change is one of many areas of science that has been stymied under the idiot in charge. The ability to THINK is making a comeback as soon as we get rid of this bunch.
“Exhale less and quit increasing the CO2 and temperature of the earth (hot air)!”
Ah, humans breathing is nearly carbon neutral - try learning a few facts before adding stupid comments.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638
And they know it linda.
The fossil fuels biz I mean?
They are spending a lot of those record profits on ads telling us how Earth friendly they are, trying to lessen the recoil against them.
Perhaps Richard Wadd and his friends in the GW Deniers Club should read this article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24339280/
“Experts find natural feedback mechanism, but say it’s ‘out of equilibrium’”
“Since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, ushering in the widespread human use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.”
Of course, Richard and his friends can just pretend that everything is hunky dory and let a future generation deal with the issue.
Back on topic. . .
It takes about a minute to review the website of the so-called Union of Concerned Scientists to determine their political leanings. The survey used to generate this story is very suspect.
http://www.ucsusa.org/
4 Trackbacks
[…] sjbpub wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptHLP: Did you show your hunting dogs west of Kingman near the Ninnescah River last Saturday/Sunday? The previous Thursday evening, I had dinner with about 20 old Pratt high school friends at Woody’s great bar and grill on Pratt’s south … […]
[…] David wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptGeorge HW Bush through George WMD Bush presided over continued denigration of scientific discoveries. We know abstinence-based sex education, so what does Brownback suggest? Spend more money on abstinence-based sex education! … […]
[…] be hyperbolic. On the other hand, there are plenty of scientists at the EPA and elsewhere who have complained about the Bush administration watering down or ignoring science for ideological […]
swab drug testing…
how to pass a drug test…